Despre plecarea ENEL din Romania: pentru fratii nostri intru latinitate e mai usor sa spele putinaOn Enel leaving Romania: For Our Latin Brothers It’s Easier to Split
Cand o companie multinationala, cum este ENEL, se retrage de pe o piata care i-a adus profituri consistente si care are un numar semnificativ de clienti apare un semn de intrebare. Ce s-a intamplat? A devenit business-ul din Romania dintr-o data neatractiv? E de vina regimului fiscal din Romania? Exista o concurenta neloiala incurajata de autoritati? Sunt clientii mai rau platitori decat in alte tari unde italienii sunt inca prezenti? Exista o strategie la nivel de grup care presupune ca Romania este o tara vulnerabila si decat sa ramai mai bine sa pleci? Sirul acestor intrebari pot continua fara sa existe si un raspuns favorabil italienilor. ENEL pleaca din Romania pentru ca si-a atins obiectivele si prezenta lor in continuare pe piata noastra devine din ce in ce mai complicata.
Scriam in urma cu cateva zile ca marile companii straine de utilitati din Romania vor afaceri de tip comunist, dar buzunar capitalist atunci cand e vorba de incasari. Paradoxal, liberalizarea pietelor de energie electrica si gaze naturale a deranjat exact companiile multinationale prezente pe piata romaneasca, in ciuda faptului ca ele ar fi trebuit sa militeze pentru accelerarea procesului. Desigur, liberalizarea inseamna in primul rand batalia pentru clienti, competitie acerba cu alti jucatori, lipsa stimulilor din partea statului etc. Erau dispusi italienii sa intre in acest complex de piata dupa ce aproape zece ani au fost serviti la tava? Plecarea lor demonstreaza ca nu.
Dincolo insa de aspectele ce tin de competitia pietei libere (cu toate lipsurile pe care le are piata romaneasca), ENEL si-a adunat deja suficiente bube-n cap pentru a mai face efortul sa le si trateze. Ultima este legata de dublarea facturilor pentru consumatori, prin intermediul suprataxarii certificatelor verzi. Problema majora nu este insa aceasta, caci si alte companii de furnizare ce beneficiaza pe partea de distributie de tarife reglementate sunt in situatia ENEL. Problema reala este aceea ca italienii au cumparat cele mai bune distributii de energie ale Electrica, la pret de nimic, in schimbul unor promisiuni de investitii care sa faca din aceste distributii o exceptie pe piata romaneasca. Or, investitiile astea apasa acum extrem de greu.
Ce e de facut? Sa stai intr-o piata care peste 3 ani e libera complet (adio tarife preferentiale de distributie), sa iti respecti obligatiile investitionale si sa asiguri clientilor servicii de calitate, sau s-o tai? Adica sa speli putina? Desigur, pentru fratii nostri intru latinitate mai simplu e sa speli putina.
Autoritatea Nationala de Reglementare in domeniul Energiei si Curtea de Conturi au intocmit niste rapoarte din care reiese ca cei care au cumparat distributiile de energie electrica din Romania nu si-au respectat angajamentele de investitii. Inclusiv ENEL. Pentru a intelege mai bine cum se prezinta situatia in cazul de fata va reamintim doar cateva lucruri ce tin de privatizarea Electrica Muntenia Sud, perla coroanei energeticii romanesti cumparata de ENEL.
Electrica Muntenia Sud are aproape 1,1 milioane de consumatori, din care clientii casnici sunt 1,03 milioane, iar consumatorii mari 2.400. Pentru primii, pretul energiei era si este inca reglementat, ceea ce asigura societatii de distributie rata de profit stabilita de comun cu ANRE. Numai ca aceasta situatie mai este valabila inca trei ani. Concret, italienii au anticipat inca din momentul semnarii contractului pentru acizitionarea Electrica Muntenia Sud (2004) ca vor avea venituri in urmatorii trei ani de 1,4 miliarde euro, din care 470 milioane euro in primul an, 485 milioane euro in al doilea an si 500 milioane euro in al treilea.
Dupa cum se dezvolta Bucurestiul si zonele limitrofe, aprovizionate cu energie de catre Muntenia Sud, aceste venituri urmau a fi mult mai mari, lucru bine stiut de catre investitori. Dovada sta faptul ca in numai patru ani, respectiv din 2004 pana in 2008, cererea de energie a clientilor Muntenia Sud a crescut cu 300%, ajungand la o putere de 530 MW. “Bucurestiul se dezvolta cu o viteza foarte mare. Urmatoarea perioada ne asteptam sa fie destul de agitata din punctul de vedere al avariilor”, a declarat in urma cu vreo cinci ani directorul general al Electrica Muntenia Sud, Luigi Giliotti.
Giliotti a avut dreptate, din punctul de vedere al avariilor, numai ca investitiile nu au tinut cont de asta.
De la un 1,5 miliarde la 1 miliard de euro
Pentru pachetul de actiuni de 50 % ale Muntenia Sud, ENEL a virat in conturile statului roman 395 milioane euro (de aici s-a scazut apoi si comisionul consultantului), urmand ca imediat sa mai aduca in companie alte 425 milioane euro, sub forma aportului la capitalul social, care conferea in final italienilor 67,5% din actiunile societatii Electrica Muntenia. Asa s-a procedat si in cazul celorlalte patru societati de distributie a energiei electrice privatizate, sumele fiind insa mult mai mici. ENEL a adus diferenta de bani dupa un an.
Banii ce reprezintau majorarea de capital, adica cele 425 milioane euro, urmaa sa fie investiti in societate, data fiind vechimea retelelor si statiilor, situata intre 20 si 30 de ani. Totul in regula pana aici. Numai ca, pentru urmatorii trei ani de la data privatizarii, italienii de la Enel anuntau investitii de minim 220 milioane euro, iar pentru urmatorii 15 ani, suma finala ar ajunge la circa 1 miliard de euro. Se impune o prima precizare. Prezent la semnarea contractului de privatizare, presedintele Enel, Fulvio Conti, anunta investitii, pentru urmatorii 15 ani de 1,5 miliarde euro. Asadar, 500 de milioane euro au ramas pe dinafara inca din start.
(va urma)When a multinational like Enel leaves a market which got it substantial benefits and a significant number of clients, questions are inevitable. What happened? Did business in Romania suddenly become unattractive? Is it the fault of the Romanian tax system? Do authorities encourage some unfair competition? Are Romanian worse payers than clients in other countries where Italians still operate? Is there a group strategy involving a vulnerability of Romania, and thus recommending to leave? The series of questions could continue, with no answer in favor of the Italians. Enel leaves Romania because it reached its objectives, and their presence on Romanian market is becoming increasingly complicated.
A couple of days ago, we wrote that big utility companies in Romania would like communist-type business, but capitalist pockets when it comes to revenues. Paradoxically, the liberalization of the energy and natural gas market has upset precisely the multinational companies present in Romania, instead getting their support for a faster pace. Of course, liberalization’s first results re fight over clients, cutthroat competition, lack of state aid, etc. Were the Italians willing to enter this market complex, after being served on a silver plate for nearly ten years? The fact that they are leaving says no.
Free market competition aside (notwithstanding all the defects of the Romanian market), Enel has accumulated enough bad marks to try to correct them. The last one was the double invoicing of green certificates, but it’s hardly the top issue, as other companies benefitting from regulated distribution tariffs did the same. The actual problem is that Italians bought for peanuts the best electricity distribution operations of Electrica, in exchange of promises of investments to make them unique in Romania. Those investments are now a heavy burden.
What could they do? Stay in a market that will be completely free in three years (say goodbye to preferential distribution tariffs), stand up to investment commitments, and provide quality services – or split? The latter is the easier choice for our Latin brothers.
The National Energy Regulatory Authority (ANRE) and the Court of Auditors drafted some reports indicating that the buyers of electricity distribution in Romania have not kept their investment promises. Enel is one of them. For better understanding the situation, we remind some facts about the privatization of Electrica Muntenia Sud, the crown jewel of the Romanian energy industry, bough by Enel.
Electrica Muntenia Sud has nearly 1.1 million consumers, of which 1.03 millions are households, and 2,400 are big clients. The price of energy is still regulated for individuals, which guarantees the profit margin agreed by the distributor and ANRE. This will only be true for three more years. Practically, the Italians anticipated revenues of 1.4 billion euros over the following three years, when they signed the contract for purchasing Eelectrica Muntenia Sud back in 2004 – 470 million over the first year, 485 million for the second year, and 500 million for the third.
Taking into account the development pace of Bucharest and of its outskirts, where electricity is supplied by Electrica Muntenia Sud (EMS), the incomes were going to grow, and investors knew it very well. As a proof, the electricity demand of EMS’s clients surged 300% from 2004 to 2008, to 530 MW of power. “Bucharest develops at a high rate. We expect the coming period to bring trouble in terms of outages,” ESM general manager Luigi Giliotti said some five years ago.
He was right about the malfunctions, but investment ignored the matter.
From 1.5 to 1 billion euros
Enel paid 395 million euros to the Romanian state for 50% of EMS’s shares; the consultant’s commission fee was later deducted, and 425 million euros more were expected as input to the company, as a contribution to its capital. The Italians were to end with 67.5 percent. This was the same process of other electricity distribution privatizations, where sums were smaller. Enel brought the rest of the money after one year.
The capital increase of 425 million euros should have gone to investments, because the grid and stations were between 20 and 30 years old. All right, but Enel announced a minimum 220 million investments over the first three years after the privatization, and the rest up to one billion over the next 15 years. The first necessary mention: Enel President Fulvio Conti, who attended the signing of the privatization contract, announced investments of 1.5 billion euros over 15 years – so 500 million were written off from the very beginning.
(to be continued)